Transcript 2030 General Plan Planning Commission Public Hearing September 4, 2008 General Plan Update Process Four Phases over 21 months • Phase 1: Public outreach, assessment, and.

2030 General Plan
Planning Commission
Public Hearing
September 4, 2008
General Plan Update Process
Four Phases over 21 months
• Phase 1: Public outreach, assessment,
and land use alternatives development
• Phase 2: General Plan Policy/Element
Development
• Phase 3: General Plan Update
Completion
• Phase 4: Development Code Update
Community Input &
Feedback Tools
• 17 GPAC meetings (including 4
meetings beyond original work scope)
• Two public workshops
• Two-Day visioning charrette
• Community telephone survey
• Stakeholder discussions/interviews
• HOA presidents’ briefing
• Fourth of July booth
• City website
Draft General Plan
General Plan Reorganization
General Plan Update
1995 General Plan
2030 General Plan
Introduction
Introduction
Conservation, Environmental Design,
Open Space
Land Use
Land Use
Open Space
Housing
Conservation
Transportation
Housing
Environmental Hazards
Circulation
Community Development
Safety
General Plan Implementation Programs
Noise
Glossary
Community Design
Parks, Recreation, and Parks
Cultural Resources
Services, Infrastructure, and Technology
General Plan Implementation Programs
Glossary
Key Changes from
1995 General Plan
Land Use Element
• Land Use Map
– 306 additional acres designated as open space (OSR or OS-RP)
– 120 acres re-designated from B-R (Business-Retail)
to MU (Mixed Use)
– New PD (Planned Development) designation for two
key sites along Las Virgenes Road
• Increased focus on “compact” development
Why Compact Development?
• Protects natural resources, hillsides, open space, and
views
• Revitalizes commercial districts with mixed uses,
emphasis on pedestrian character, and creation of a
“sense of place”
• Reduces vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled &
greenhouse gas emissions
• Complies with new law (SB 375) currently contemplated
by Legislature
– Would require SCAG to create land use/ transportation plans
encouraging “smart growth”
– Would give local agencies complying with regional plans priority
for state transportation funds
Current v. GPAC-Recommended
Map Land Use Breakdown*
Draft Land Use Map
Current Land Use Map
5%
1%
Business/
Commercial
Mixed Use
4%
Business/
Commercial
Mixed Use
2%
32%
32%
Open Space
Open Space
37%
22%
3%
Public Facilities
Public Facilities
Rural
Residential
Urban
Residential
* Breakdown within existing City limits
40%
19%
Rural
Residential
Urban
Residential
3%
Land Use Map
Key Changes from
1995 General Plan (cont’d)
Open Space Element
• Open space target increased from 3,000 acres to 4,000
acres
• Open space & ridgeline maps added
• Potential development rights retirement sites locations
identified
Conservation Element
• Biological resource & surface water body maps added
• Discussions of all issues updated to reflect current
physical & regulatory conditions
• Discussions of the following added:
– Greenhouse gases (GHGs)
– City’s green building program
Potential Development Rights
Retirement Sites
Significant Ridgelines
Key Changes from
1995 General Plan (cont’d)
Housing Element
• Identification of sites to accommodate 521 units
(per RHNA)
• Designation of multi-family sites @ 20 du/acre
• Proactive steps to preserve lower income at-risk
rental housing
• Rental Registration Program maintained
• Locally-funded Rental Subsidy Program
maintained
Key Changes from
1995 General Plan (cont’d)
Housing Element
• Permanent Mobilehome Park zoning proposed
• Second Unit ordinance proposed to be amended to allow
by right
• Establishment of Workforce Housing Program to be
evaluated
• Development Code revisions: 1) Define transitional and
supportive housing as residential use; 2) Permit
emergency shelters by-right in Commercial Limited (CL)
zones (required by state law)
• Reasonable Accommodation procedures established
Key Changes from
1995 General Plan (cont’d)
Circulation Element
• “Urban”/”rural” distinction eliminated and a single set of
level of service (LOS) standards provided
– Rural & urban roadways not defined in current plan
– LOS B not attainable on certain “rural” roadways
• 2,400 daily trip “limit” on Lost Hills Road (north of
freeway), Old Topanga Road, and Mulholland Highway
eliminated
– Not enforceable since City cannot control through traffic
– City controls local traffic through land use element
• “Significance thresholds” in Policy A.3 (Policy VI-3 in
draft element) modified
Circulation System
Recommended
Circulation Thresholds
Level of Service
(LOS)
V/C Ratio
C
Max Peak Hour V/C Increase*
Current
Transportation
Chapter
Proposed
Circulation
Element
0.71-0.80
0.010 (Rural)
N/A
D
0.81-0.90
0.006 (Rural)
0.010 (Urban)
0.020
E
0.91-1.00
0.003 (Rural)
0.006 (Urban)
0.015
F
>1.00
0.003
0.010
* Currently a “limit” on V/C increase; change to “significance threshold” recommended.
Key Changes from
1995 General Plan (cont’d)
Safety Element
• Discussions of all issues updated to reflect current physical &
regulatory conditions
• Table of “unacceptable” risks removed – thresholds not realistic
• Geologic hazard maps added
• Discussion of radon gas added
Noise Element
• Noise contour & measurement maps added
• Policy requiring new Noise Ordinance added with standards for:
– Construction
– Mixed use
• Interior/exterior noise standard table eliminated; to be replaced with
Noise Ordinance
Seismic Hazard Zones
Key Changes from
1995 General Plan (cont’d)
Community Design Element
• New element
• References various design plans/standards adopted
since 1995
– Site Plan review
– Old Town Calabasas, Las Virgenes Gateway, West Calabasas
Road & Mulholland Highway master plans
– Scenic corridor overlay zone
• Emphasis on compact urban form & open space
protection
• Specific guidelines/policies for individual neighborhoods
& mixed use districts
West Village
East Village
Key Changes from
1995 General Plan (cont’d)
Parks, Recreation & Trails Element
• Emphasis on continued & expanded joint use agreements with
LVUSD
• Potential future park (sports field) sites identified
– Pontopiddan
– County site (northeast of 101/Lost Hills Road interchange)
– Calabasas Landfill site
Cultural Resources Element
• Pre-historic & historic background discussions added
• Reference to new Historic Preservation Ordinance added
• Discussion of desire for improved cultural amenities included:
– Cultural programs
– Public art
– Venues for theater, dance & children’s programs
Key Changes from
1995 General Plan (cont’d)
Services, Infrastructure & Technology Element
• Reorganized to include:
– Fiscal management
– Municipal & educational services
– Water, sewer, storm drain & technological infrastructure
• Sewer system policy revised for areas currently on septic systems in
order to:
– Provide for regular monitoring & reporting of septic system performance
– Provide for extension of sewer system where technically warranted,
economically feasible & environmentally beneficial
• Discussion of technology added
– Provide for citywide area network
– Encourage provision of integrated technology and telecommunications
facilities
– Coordinate development of regional systems
Staff/Consultant Changes to
GPAC Recommendations
Land Use Element
• Policy II-4 – Requirement for adoption of a specific plan
in conjunction with Craftsman’s Corner annexation
removed
• Policy II-7 – “semi-rural character” changed to
“neighborhood character”
• Policy II-8 – “overall semi-rural and residential
character” changed to “overall residential character”
• Policy II-9 – “assembly of distinct urban residential
neighborhoods, rural communities, and rural residential
areas” changed to “assembly of distinct neighborhoods”
Staff/Consultant Changes to GPAC
Recommendations (cont’d)
Housing Element
• Program 11: Inclusionary Housing – GPAC
recommended eliminating “in lieu housing fees as an
option for meeting the City’s inclusionary housing
requirement; staff recommend retaining lieu fees as an
option
• Program 13: Workforce Housing – GPAC
recommended eliminating homeownership assistance
program for the local workforce (teachers, police &
firefighters, etc.) to be funded with the Housing Trust
Fund; staff recommend retaining this program
Additional Recommended
Changes - Annexation
• Add the following at the end of the General Plan
Approach:
– Previously unforeseen annexation opportunities
involving properties not indicated on Figure II-1 may
arise from time to time and the City may consider
such annexations as appropriate. Such consideration
shall require an amendment to the General Plan
• Add the following note on figure II-1 (land use
map):
– Other lands adjacent to City boundaries may be
considered for future annexation and will be
considered as appropriate.
Additional Recommended
Changes – Annexation (cont’d)
Recommended New Land Use Element Policy (Policy II-7)
For any annexation territory, all vested entitlements shall be recognized and
retained by the City upon annexation, unless otherwise revised by mutual
agreement of the City and the affected property owners, such that any revisions
to vested entitlements will result in improved development patterns and
conditions having less environmental impact. Because previously vested
projects may not be fully consistent with the provisions of this General Plan,
modifications to such projects may be found consistent with the General Plan if
the following criteria are met:
–
–
–
The overall density/intensity of the modified project is no greater than that of the
vested project;
The modified project will not result in any environmental impacts greater than those
which would have resulted from the vested project; and
The modified project achieves a substantially greater degree of consistency with the
policies and objectives of the General Plan and complies more fully with the
standards and requirements of the Development Code than the vested project.
HCD Comments
on Draft Housing Element
Sites for Emergency Shelters
 Describe suitable CL zoned sites near services/facilities.
Ensure processing procedures and standards facilitate,
not constrain, provision of shelters.
Inclusionary Zoning
 Describe implementation requirements and economic
incentives/regulatory concessions to ensure ordinance
does not impact housing production.
Energy Conservation
 Describe how City will promote energy conservation in
new and existing residential development.
HCD Comments on
Draft Housing Element (cont’d)
Housing Programs
 Extremely low income households – ID programs to
address.
 Second Units – Potential expansion to address
extremely low income. ID how City to promote.
 Density Bonus Program – ID steps to promote
program.
 Renter Overpayment - ID programs to address need.
 Workforce Housing - Potential expansion to rental
housing.
 Fair Housing Program – ID methods to promote
program.
HCD Comments on
Draft Housing Element (cont’d)
Adequacy of Multi-Family Residential Sites
 Rancho Pet Kennel Site - Assess realistic development
capacity based on status of existing uses, developable
acreage.
 Las Virgenes 2 – Assess realistic development capacity
based on allowance of non-residential uses. Describe
proposed development standards and any incentives for
residential development.
Allowance for Residential Uses “By Right” on Sites
Rezoned to Address RHNA Shortfall
 Las Virgenes 2 designated Planned Development under
General Plan. To credit site toward RHNA, cannot require
discretionary PD permit for residential component.
Staff Recommendations to
Address R-MF Site Issues
Issue: Rancho Pet Kennel – Developable Acreage
Recommendation:
 Eliminate sloped portion of site from developable
acreage. Reduces development potential to 5 acres of
total 6.6-acre parcel with maximum yield of 100 units.
Issue: Discretionary Planned Development Permit
Recommendation:
 Re-designate multi-family portion of Las Virgenes 2 from
PD to R-MF (20 du/acre). Balance of 16-acre site to
remain PD.
RHNA Shortfall
Under Existing General Plan
Income
Group
Total
RHNA
Entitled
Projects/Bldg
Permits
Unit Potential
Under Current
Zoning
RHNA
Shortfall
Very Low/Low
223
75 (Old Town Senior
Housing)
9 (Standard Pacific)
Moderate
93
--
80 (Pet Kennel)
13
> Moderate
205
291
212
0
Total
521
375
292
152 total
shortfall
139 @
20+du/acre
13 @ 12+
du/acre
139
Re-designation Options to
Address RHNA Shortfall
OPTION A: Rancho Pet Kennel RM 20, portion Las Virgenes 2 RM 20
Site
Developable
Acreage
Proposed
Designation
Unit Potential
Rancho Pet
Kennel
5 acres
R-MF (20/ac)
100 units
Las Virgenes 2
5 acres
11 acres
R-MF (20/ac)
Planned
Development
100 units
60 units
RESULT – Sites for 200 lower income units, 60
moderate income units
Re-designation Options to
Address RHNA Shortfall (cont’d)
OPTION B: Rancho Pet Kennel RM 12, portion Las Virgenes 1 RM 20,
portion Las Virgenes 2 RM 20
Site
Developable
Acreage
Proposed
Zoning
Unit Potential
Rancho Pet Kennel
5 acres
RM (12/ac)
60 units
Las Virgenes 1
(northern site)
2 acres
R-MF (20/ac)
40 units
Las Virgenes 2
5 acres
11 acres
R-MF (20/ac)
Planned
Development
100 units
60 units
RESULT – Sites for 140 lower income units, 120
moderate income units
Re-designation Options to
Address RHNA Shortfall (cont’d)
OPTION C: Rancho Pet Kennel RM 12, Golf Driving Range RM 20,
portion Las Virgenes 2 RM 20
Site
Developable
Acreage
Proposed
Zoning
Unit Potential
Rancho Pet Kennel
5 acres
RM (12/ac)
60 units
Driving Range
6 acres
RM-F (20/ac)
120 units
Las Virgenes 2
5 acres
11 acres
R-MF (20/ac)
Planned
Development
100 units
60 units
RESULT – Sites for 220 lower income units, 120
moderate income units
Draft
Environmental Impact
Report
CEQA Purposes
 Disclose the Significant Environmental Effects
of Proposed Actions
 Identify Ways to Avoid or Reduce
Environmental Damage
 Consider Feasible Alternatives to Proposed
Actions
 Enhance Public Participation in the Planning
Process
EIRs are informational documents, not policy
documents.
CEQA Environmental
Review Process
City circulates
Notice of Preparation
City prepares
Draft EIR
City files
Notice of Completion
Public Review Period
(45-day minimum)
City prepares Final EIR
City certifies EIR &
makes decision on project
Responsible agencies
comment on EIR scope
Public and responsible
agencies comment on Draft
EIR
Program EIR
• Prepared on a series of actions that can be
characterized as one large project
• Allows for consideration of broad policy alternatives
and programwide mitigation
• Can be used for subsequent activities that are
consistent with the larger program if the activity
would not create new significant environmental
effects
• Not a “project EIR,” which considers individual
development projects in more detail
Types of Impacts
• Unavoidably significant (Class I) – impacts that
exceed significance thresholds and cannot be
mitigated to below thresholds
• Significant, but mitigable (Class II) – impacts
that exceed thresholds, but can be mitigated to
below thresholds
• Less than significant (Class III) – impacts that
do not exceed thresholds
• No impact/beneficial (Class IV)
Issues to be Analyzed per CEQA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards/Hazardous
Materials
• Hydrology/Water Quality
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Other Required CEQA Discussions
• Growth Inducement
• Significant Irreversible Effects
• Alternatives
– No Project (both “no development” & 1995 General
Plan)
– 16 du/acre maximum for Residential-Multiple Family
(R-MF) designation
– Reduced development intensity in mixed use districts
– No housing requirement in mixed use districts
– Alternative sites for R-MF designation (Las Virgenes
1 & Golf Course Driving Range)
Major EIR Findings
• No “significant” impacts identified for most issue areas
– General Plan land use map generally oriented toward
environmental protection
– Proposed General Plan policies & programs effectively address
many potential impacts, making the plan largely self-mitigating
• Most identified “significant” impacts mitigated through
additional policies or other plan revisions
Finding of “less than significant” impacts at policy level of
analysis does not necessarily mean that individual
developments will not have “significant” project-level
impacts.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Air Quality
• Air Resources Board recommends siting of sensitive
receptors at least 500 feet from freeway because of
elevated diesel particulate concentrations
• Residences in mixed use districts & Rancho Pet Kennel
site located within 500 feet of Ventura Freeway
• Potential impact addressed by new policy:
Require applicants for projects containing sensitive receptors (such
as residences, schools, day care centers, and medical facilities) on
sites within 500 feet of the Ventura Freeway to demonstrate that
health risks relating to diesel particulates would not exceed
acceptable health risk standards prior to project approval.
Potentially Significant Impacts
(cont’d)
Liquefaction/Landslides
• Land use plan facilitates development in liquefactionprone areas (Westside Village, Las Virgenes 1 & 2) &
landslide-prone areas (all hillsides)
• No specific policy statement addressing either issue
• Mitigation involves adding the following policy:
Prior to approval of development projects within the
liquefaction or landslide hazard zones depicted on Figure
VII-2 or other areas identified by the City Engineer as
having significant liquefaction or landslide hazards, require
applicants to prepare site-specific liquefaction and/or
landslide studies and mitigation. Such studies shall be
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
Potentially Significant Impacts
(cont’d)
Traffic and Circulation
• Potential exceedance of General Plan standards (LOS
C/D) at the following intersections:
– Lost Hills Road/Agoura Road (P.M. LOS E)
– Las Virgenes Road/Agoura Road (P.M. LOS E)
– Calabasas Road/Ventura Freeway SB ramps - West (A.M. LOS
E, P.M. LOS F)
– Parkway Calabasas/Ventura Boulevard (P.M. LOS E)
– Calabasas Road/Valley Circle Boulevard (P.M. LOS E)
• Feasible mitigation available for all except Calabasas
Road/Valley Circle Blvd. (City of Los Angeles)
Traffic Mitigation
• Lost Hills Rd/Agoura Rd & Las Virgenes Rd/Agoura Rd
– Restriping/signal modifications; and
– Reduce maximum FAR in Westside Village to 0.6 or limit maximum
allowable development to 1.725 million sf (500K sf increase above
existing)
• Calabasas Road/Ventura Freeway SB ramps
– Additional east-west capacity needed
– Widen WB approach to provide two through lanes and right-turn lane
• Parkway Calabasas/Ventura Boulevard
– Widen and restripe northbound approach lane to provide shared leftturn-through lane and separate right-turn lane; and
– Restripe southbound approach to provide shared left-through lane and
shared through-right-turn lane; and
– Reduce maximum FAR in Craftsman’s Corner to 0.95 or limit maximum
allowable development to 2.2 million sf (~1.2 million sf increase above
existing)
Other Key Issues
• Schools
– Capacity issues at Lupin Hill Elementary potentially exacerbated
by west side development
– Not a significant impact under CEQA as state law mandates that
collection of school impact fees reduces capacity impacts to less
than significant, but a planning consideration
• Water Supply
– Maximum buildout increases citywide water demand by 1.01
mgd
– Maximum buildout demand exceeds LVMWD Master Plan
forecast
– Maximum buildout unlikely to occur and MWD forecasts show
20-25% reserve capacity through 2030
Alternatives
•
•
•
•
•
No Project (no further development)
No Project (1995 General Plan)
16 Units/Acre Maximum for R-MF Designation
No Housing Requirement in Mixed Use Districts
Alternative R-MF Sites
– R-MF Designation for 2.5 Acres of Las Virgenes 1
– R-MF Designation for Driving Range Site
None of the alternatives except No Project (no further
development) would eliminate the unavoidably
significant traffic impact.
Alternatives (cont’d)
• 1995 General Plan
– Overall development potential similar to proposed
General Plan
– Slightly more potential for disturbance of “natural”
resources; slightly less potential for compatibility
conflicts within developed areas
• 16 DU/Acre Maximum for R-MF Designation
– Slight reduction in traffic, aesthetic & other impacts
– No change in significance determination
– Housing Element would not comply with RHNA
Residential Unit Potential for the Proposed
General Plan and Alternative R-MF Sites
Income Group
RHNA
Allocation
Unit Potential
Proposed
General
Plan
Las
Virgenes 1
Site Alt.
Golf Course
Driving
Range Site
Alt.
Very Low & Low
223
354
284
364
Moderate
93
--
66
--
Above Moderate
205
503
488
543
Total
521
857
838
907
Rancho Pet Kennel Site Concept
• 110 units on 5.4 acres
• 1.23 dedicated open
space acres
• Complies with all R-MF
standards except
impervious surface
coverage (59%
coverage exceeds 55%
standard)
Las Virgenes 1 Site Alternative
• 40 MF units on 2 acres with
0.45 acres of dedicated
open space (up to 30 SF
units under proposed GP)
• Complies with all R-MF
standards except
impervious surface
coverage (59%)
• Rancho Pet Kennel
designated Res-Moderate
(12 units/acre)
• Slight reduction in traffic on
Lost Hills Rd; slight increase
on Las Virgenes Rd
• Slight improvement with
respect to compatibility
(visual, noise)
Driving Range Site Alternative
• 120 units on 6 acres with 2.66
dedicated open space acres
(site currently designated B-LI)
• Rancho Pet Kennel
redesignated R-SF (up to 6
units/acre)
• Slight reduction in traffic on
Lost Hills Rd & Calabasas Rd
• Compatibility conflicts
generally similar to Rancho
Pet Kennel site
• Increased landslide hazard
(designated landslide hazard
area)
• Increased biological (oak)
impacts
• Reduced impact to west side
elementary school
Comments on the Draft EIR
• 8 comment letters received as of August 29
– County Sanitation Districts
– Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica
Mountains
– LVUSD
– LVMWD
– Hidden Hills
– L.A. County Public Health
– Mary Hubbard, Malibu Canyon Community Association
– Irv and Reva Isaacman, local residents
Key Issues Raised
• Final disposition of Calabasas Landfill (Sanitation
Districts/County Health Dept)
• Biological & water quality impacts due to buildout of Las
Virgenes 1 & 2 sites (Resource Conservation District)
• Possible annexation of Craftsman’s Corner (Hidden
Hills)
• Alternative multi-family residential sites (Hubbard)
Most comments do not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR
and none identify new significant environmental impacts.
DEIR Text Modifications
• Clarifications based on comments received:
– Solid waste/landfill data
– Description of LVUSD facilities
– Description of annexation approval process for
Craftsman’s Corner
– Water quality status of Las Virgenes Creek/Malibu
Creek
– Las Virgenes Road scenic corridor status
(alternatives analysis)
• Other editorial changes:
– Corrections to table nos./references
– Minor typographical corrections
Additional Suggested
Changes to Geology Section
• Concerns raised with respect to landslide discussion in
Section 4.5, Geology
• Suggested changes include:
– Minor clarifications to discussions of ground acceleration, lateral
spreading, and expansive soils
– Clarification of the severity of landslide hazards throughout
hillside areas
– References to maps & studies other than state landslide hazard
map
– Expanded list of regional faults
– Description of the City’s process for geotechnical review of
individual projects
Suggested changes clarify geologic conditions, but do not
identify new significant impacts.
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
08-434 recommending to the City Council:
 Certification of an Environmental Impact Report as being
adequate and conformant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA
Guidelines
 Approval of File No. 080000815, amending the General
Plan for the City of Calabasas by adopting the 2030
General Plan update.